The court clarified the calculation of compensation including the age and income of the deceased, establishing liability of the insurer in absence of valid license proof.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M ADIGA, J.

Both these appeals arises out of the judgment and award dated 19.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga in MVC.No.1756/2010.

2. MFA.No.4394/2013 is filed by the insurer and MFA.No.8407/2013 is filed by the claimants. Since both the appeals arise out of common judgment and award, both are taken up together for final disposal.

3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

The case of the claimants is that one Jamuna wife of claimant No.1 and mother of claimant No.2 was traveling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 16/Q-0073. One Gajendra Babu was riding the said vehicle. He rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost his control over the vehicle as a result of which she sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. The pillion rider Smt.Jamuna sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to injuries on 07.09.2010.

4. It is the case of claimants that deceased was aged about 25 years at the time of the accident. She was self employed i.e., was doing tailoring work and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased was contributing her earnings to the family. It is also submitted that the claimants had spent a sum of Rs.34,000/- towards medical expenses for her treatment. With these reasons, claimants prayed to award compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

5. The respondent in his written statement denied the contention of the claim petition and stated that rider of the motor cycle was aged 19 years and was not possessing valid and effective driving license. At the time of accident, there were three pillion riders in the motor cycle and rider lost control over the vehicle and caused accident, therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of the parties. Claimants examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 10 documents as per Exs.P1 to P10. The respondent examined RW-1 and marked Ex.R1.

7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties, appreciated the evidence on record and allowed the claim petition by the impugned judgment. The Tribunal held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider and death of Jamuna was caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 32 years and applied the multiplier at 16. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month; deducted 1/3^rd towards personal expenses and on the basis of the same assessed the compensation including the amount spent towards medical expenses. Being aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal, both the claimants as well as respondent No.2 preferred these two appeals.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the claimants as well as insurer.

9. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that age of the deceased assessed by the Tribunal is incorrect. In the claim petition and evidence of PW-1 and Ex.P5, age of the deceased is mentioned as 25 years. The Tribunal was carried away by the cross examination of PW-1 that she married about 12 years prior to the accident, on that basis held that her age was 32 years, at the time of her death. If that is the case, then she might have been married at the age of 12 or 13 years, which may not be probable. Therefore, the age of the deceased shall be considered as 25 years. He further contended that the deceased was a tailor and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, as per the claim petition; Even if there is no sufficient evidence, then